Sarcophagus (Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God)

[vhfratersp]

Hello everyone.

In
"Aleister Crowley and the hidden God", Kenneth Grant shows a fragment
of an Egyptian sarcophagus (plate 4, showing Duamutef and Ahepi with a
heron or phoenix;) which he claims was used in the GD for "establishing
magical contact with the khu of an Egyptian priestess". However he
doesn't actually discuss this in the book. Does anyone have any more
info on this (which GD temple it was used in, how, by whom, etc)?

V.H. Frater S.P.

[N0T 2]

May 28, 2014 8:20:27 GMT vhfratersp said:

Hello everyone.

In
"Aleister Crowley and the hidden God", Kenneth Grant shows a fragment
of an Egyptian sarcophagus (plate 4, showing Duamutef and Ahepi with a
heron or phoenix;) which he claims was used in the GD for "establishing
magical contact with the khu of an Egyptian priestess". However he
doesn't actually discuss this in the book. Does anyone have any more
info on this (which GD temple it was used in, how, by whom, etc)?

V.H. Frater S.P.

Care Frater,

I believe the priestess was Florence Farr (click for bio) working with Mathers.

I quote the relevant part here, as it merits it:

She focused her work on Egyptology at the British Museum with Sir E. Wallis Budge, and the Alchemy of Thomas Vaughn with Rev. William Ayton. She was quite adept at the Enochian system and the I Ching. But it was Skrying in the Spirit Vision that was her forte, especially when skyring [sic.!] in the Golden Dawn's Vault.

It was through her skrying that Florence contacted an Ancient Egyptian Priestess of the Temple of Amon-at-Thebes, named NEM KHEFT KA. Mathers verified this entity as a secret chief, encouraging Florence to do further skrying to acquire the arcane rites of this ancient Mystic Order. This led to the famous invocation of Taphthartharath to physical appearance with fellow Adept Allen Bennett.

Occultists! lol

I wonder what the results were - did they succeed in acquiring these rites?


She also wrote this , which is likely related.

Non-mobilely becoming,
N0T 2

[Deleted]

The funerary gods known as the Four Sons of Horus each presided as guardians over one of the four cardinal points like this:

Imsety - South
Hapi - North
Duamutef - East
Qebehsenuef - West

which lends itself to seamless integration with the four Watchtowers, Enochian tablets, and Elemental Quadrangles of Golden Dawn ritual magic.

From this point of view, designing an operation  around the sarcophagus  fragment would have been very straightforward in the GD system, whilst not forgetting that Imsety and Qebehsenuef would certainly have been depicted on the parts of the sarcophagus now lost.

Incidentally, one should never overlook the possibility that archaeological artefacts, especially those carrying glyphs and sigils, may still host dormant imaginal links to the Forgotten Ones, links which the sorcerer can revivify and explore.

[vhfratersp]

Thank you! It makes sense, Farr actually created her own Egyptian based order after the GD, so maybe it's how she came up with the rituals: solascendans.com/2012/07/05/the-order-of-great-osiris-the-saviour/

[Deleted]

Farr's attempts to lead the GD into deeper Egyptian practice by running a course for Zelators on the Book of the Dead was one of her major points of disagreement with Annie Horniman and directly contributed to the final break-up of the Order.*

*A. Norman Jeffares, W.B. Yeats: A New Biography, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2001, p. 98.

[PW PV 113]

Paints her as a time-traveller, picking up her own transmission. Kudos to Florence.
Notable that her method was to embody Thoth and that Mathers identified her past life personality as a secret chief.

[N0T 2]

May 29, 2014 11:07:12 GMT PW PV 113 said:

Paints her as a time-traveller, picking up her own transmission. Kudos to Florence.
Notable that her method was to embody Thoth and that Mathers identified her past life personality as a secret chief.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I knew it was Mathers and Farr, and that she had published that work on Egyptian magic, but I did not previously realise that a) hers and Mathers' goal was to recover lost Egyptian rites through time-travel, and b) that Mathers declared the priestess they contacted as one of the immortal and hitherto unnameable and therefore definitively Secret Chiefs of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Maybe he was just trying to tell her in a roundabout way that he thought she was really very pretty, your previous incarnation was my boss, but whatever the case, this is of direct interest both to the inherited mythology of the current and its roots as well as being a very intriguing example of the operative research lines they were creatively embarking upon as psychonauts and cutting-edge magicians of their day.

The G.D. was supposed to have three Secret Chiefs, although I could be rusty on this. If so, I wonder if this ancient priestess secret chief was ever officially and doctrinally enshrined in some form by the order or its members, and if any of the other Secret Chiefs were doxed, so to speak, in the same way? And if so, what are their names?

Did they stop calling the station "Secret Chief" as a result of the unauthorised disclosure of the identity of this ancient Priestess - after all, she was known then, not Secret?

Is it an account of unnecessarily fixing the volatile by name and image (thereby losing its potency and its mercurial potential as indeterminate and formless - sunyata, which is how the G.D. conceived of the supernals upon which they based their Tiphareth/Ruach-centred system) whilst also tying it to a specific ego with inevitable results for the collective order? is it possibly the historical reality of the actual experience of that Ancient Egyptian Priestess and are we to expect gradual discovery of materials relating to her life which indicate that such a vision (of making contact with G.D. members of the distant future in Victorian England) actually occurred to her?

That's what I want to know!

This would have been roughly when or just before Crowley knew Bennett (rusty on this too), so I wonder of what if any influence it had in the milieu of that association.

[stephen]

This very topic came up on LAShTAL.COM last July.  I believe that it was Frater Shaddad who raised the question.  I have managed to retrieve my reply which is posted here.

Kenneth Grant gives the details regarding the fragment in Hecate's Fountain, Ch.1 "Objets d'Art Noir", where he states that it was used as an item of psychic focus by a splinter group in the Golden Dawn led by Florence Farr, author of the 1896 monograph on "Egyptian Magic". He says that it was subsequently given to the Grants in 1948 by a collector, who might well have been Gerald Yorke.

More information is to be found in Ellic Howe's The Magicians of the Golden Dawn, (1972). In his Forward, Gerald Yorke mentions:
"Florence Farr ('Sapienta Sapienti Dona Date') and her 'Sphere Group' were controlled by a 'certain Egyptian astral form' first contacted through a piece of his mummy case - or so F.L. Gardner ('De Profundis Ad Lucem'), who was a member of her group for a time, once told me." (p.xviii). He gives this as an example of his disillusion with what he regards as the 'Secret Chiefs' delusion within the Order (and beyond).

Annie Horniman had the following to say in November 1902: "This group consisted of 12 members and the symbols were adapted from the star maps and Tree of Life projected on a sphere, whence they were sometimes called the sphere group. The twelve members had astral stations assigned to them around this sphere and a certain Egyptian astral form was supposed to occupy the centre".
She was virulently opposed to the activities of the group, believing that their faulty use of symbolism was open to Qlippothic forces and that "the alien and hostile Egyptian astral" was "producing definite prejudicial affects upon" the Order". (p.247)

The sphere group itself appears to have regarded the Egyptian as a (male) Secret Chief functioning on the higher planes.

At this point, I sense intimations of a foreshadowing of the Equinox of the Gods and the intervention of Aiwass via the psychic focus of the Khu of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu.

Now in his "Objets d'Art Noir" chapter, Kenneth Grant gives a fascinating account of a New Isis Rite involving the use of the sarcophagus fragment to make contact with the Khu of an Egyptian priestess; there is no doubting of that point.

Priest or Priestess: the artefact itself gives us little to go on. Grant tells us that it is purportedly from the 26th Dynasty and describes it thus: "Remnants of the mummy swathings still adhere to its inner surface. The images of the Ape of Thoth and of the jackal sacred to Anubis are clearly discernible". It has to be noted that he is actually inaccurate here. The images are in fact those of two of the four Children of Horus, notably the ape-headed Hapy and the jackal-headed Tuamutef; along with their brothers the hawk-headed Qebshenuf and the human-headed Meshtha they were guardians of the body of the deceased as well as being Gods of the Quarters. (Hapy = N, Tuamutef = E, Qebshenuf = W, and Meshtha = S). They are usually shown grouped around the coffin of the mummy, two at either side, although they would in effect be positioned in their quarters, rather like a modern guard of honour. Behind them is a funerary chest, or shrine, bearing a pedestal on which is perched what is probably a Bennu bird, (a grey heron symbolising resurrection).

Consult Ch.3 "The Draconian Cult of Ancient Khem" in Cults of the Shadow for an exploration of related themes.

The Egyptologists among you might be able to identify the style of the artwork of the fragment (if you are familiar with it at all); I would hazard the suggestion that it is certainly not earlier than the 26th Dynasty and probably co-eval with the Saite Recension of The Book of the Dead. Unusually, Hapy appears to be wearing what looks like a fish on his head, if that is any clue.

The item was certainly one of Kenneth Grant's treasured possessions, it is to be seen on his personal altar on the cover photograph and the frontispiece of Grist To Whose Mill ?. I doubt that Steffi (and her family) would be willing to submit such a magically charged talisman to scientific analysis at the British Museum. Therefore, any expert opinions are welcome.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2014 15:31:42 GMT stephen said:

"Remnants of the mummy swathings still adhere to its inner surface. The images of the Ape of Thoth and of the jackal sacred to Anubis are clearly discernible". It has to be noted that he is actually inaccurate here. The images are in fact those of two of the four Children of Horus, notably the ape-headed Hapy and the jackal-headed Tuamutef;

Quite right, but Hapi is a hamadryas baboon, as is Astennu, Thoth's general factotum, and Thoth himself occasionally. The hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas) is one of the Old World monkey family, and has a tail, whilst none of  the Ape family (Hominoidea) have tails.

In his commentary on ATU I, The Juggler, Crowley opines that "The Hindu conception of Mercury, Hanuman, the monkey god, is abominably degraded. None of the higher aspects of the symbol are found in his cult. The aim of his adepts seems principally to have been the production of a temporary incarnation of the god by sending the women of the tribe every year into the jungle. Nor do we find any legend of any depth or spirituality. Hanuman is certainly little more than the Ape of Thoth."    (my underlining)

It is just as well that Crowley's feckless 'Ape of Thoth' is not the deity given the solemn duty of recording the results of weighing the hearts of the Dead, as is Astennu, Thoth's baboon-headed assistant. Nor is it easy to imagine this trivial Ape being given custody of the lungs of the deceased - the very means of breath - when the baboon-headed Hapi, son of Horus the Elder, was a so much safer pair of hands.

'The Ape of Thoth' seems little more than the demeaning term by which Crowley referred to Leah Hirsig.  To apply it to the god of the sarcophagus fragment seems careless and poorly thought through.


Addendum:  I see that the G.D. teachings on the funerary gods of the canopic jars were also unreliable. J.W. Brodie-Innes, writing as G.H. Frater Sub Spe, confuses the responsibilities of Hapi with those of Tuamutef  "Ahephi was also termed "The Digger" or "Burier" for he puts out of sight or removes that which is useless or offensive in the body, and to him the Lower Intestines or Bowels were dedicated .Tmoumathph was also called "The Cutter" or "Divider" for he divides and distributes the blood bearing with it the Prana and the Subtle Ether by the Holy Science of Breath brought into the body, and to him were the lungs or heart dedicated."

This error is then given symbolic form in "a Temple of the Grade of Neophyte, the Four Gods, Ameshet, Ahephi, Tmoumathaph, Kabexnuf, said also to be Vice-gerants of the Elements, and answering to the Rivers of Eden as drawn in the Warrant of the Temple... "

Source: THE CANOPIC GODS
THE SYMBOLISM OF THE FOUR GENII
OF THE HALL OF THE NEOPHYTES
By G. H. FRATER Sub Spe


The confusion of the hamadryas baboon with an ape seems to have first appeared in Wallis-Budge's 1895 commentary on the Book of the Dead,* where he asserts that Hapi is an 'ape', and generally uses the term 'ape' whenever he should have referred to  baboons throughout the text.  The late Victorian scholarship of Wallis-Budge had a formative effect on the G.D.'s Egyptian Imaginalia, and errors made by him persist in the occult literature when they have long been revised in the modern literature of Egyptology. I understand that Wallis-Budge was on friendly terms with Florence Farr, though I can find no secure support for the claim that he was himself a member of the G.D.. 

*E.A. Wallis Budge   The Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani in the British Museum; the Egyptian Text with Interlinear Transliteration and Translation, a Running Translation, Introduction, etc.[London]: British Museum. 1895

[PW PV 113]

This is potentially a very rich vein for working. It seems to me that the only way it can have worked for Florence Farr is that she was Nem Kheft Ka in a previous incarnation and that in that incarnation she consciously projected herself forwards in time so that she could pick herself up later. Both ends of the operation would be necessary. But we only think this due to our linear perception of time; we believe one happens before the other. If the zone in which the two personalities meet is essentially timeless, then from both eras the projection is the same; into the timeless realm in which two aspects of the same Self meet each other. Access to that realm becomes key along with development of a Self that has done so "before". I take it that access is via approximation of a vibration; the sarcophagus would have held the desired vibration. I think it's fair to assume as well that Nem Kheft Ka wouldn't have been the only one doing this; we can imagine groups of people hanging out, projecting themselves into a timeless realm in order to contact themselves in other times. It's also pretty clear that this is under the auspices of Thoth (who I prefer to express as "the being who projects as Thoth") and that therefore in attempting any present day regression, invocation of Thoth would be a sensible first move. Further results are expected soon.

[Deleted]

Working with ancient artefacts that may still have live dynamic links is surely a rich vein to be explored, as you say, Philip, but take care not to be limited by your attempts to explain it.

[N0T 2]

May 29, 2014 18:20:57 GMT @brocken said:

'The Ape of Thoth' seems little more than the demeaning term by which Crowley referred to Leah Hirsig.  To apply it to the god of the sarcophagus fragment seems careless and poorly thought through.

When, as a young pup, I first read this expression of Crowley's, in the context of my reading and Work at the time I understood it as referring to the distorting effect of language upon meaning, of form upon function, of means upon ends, etc. (a theme later explored by McLuhan), entropy or noise writ large into the signal during any process of Magical reification. Grant's Tangential Tantrums are a related but distinct idea - as is the Division in the Word, the Wrong of the Beginning, etc.. - and the "factor infinite and unknown, and all their words are skew-wise".

His reference to Leah by this nickname was later and secondary (though probably related) to this and not merely a feature of her character as he saw it, physical or otherwise. The term has an intrinsic symbolic meaning (regardless of mere academic philological concerns).

I would suspect Grant uses the term in Crowley's deeper magical sense, and does not suggest that the sarcophagus fragment represents Leah Hirsig, which, as you say, would be misleading.

On this note,

Addendum: I see that the G.D. teachings on the funerary gods of the canopic jars were also unreliable. [...]
This error is then given symbolic form in "a Temple of the Grade of Neophyte, the Four Gods, Ameshet, Ahephi, Tmoumathaph, Kabexnuf, said also to be Vice-gerants of the Elements, and answering to the Rivers of Eden as drawn in the Warrant of the Temple... "


The confusion of the hamadryas baboon with an ape seems to have first appeared in Wallis-Budge's 1895 commentary on the Book of the Dead,* where he asserts that Hapi is an 'ape', and generally uses the term 'ape' whenever he should have referred to baboons throughout the text. [...]

etc. etc.

What criteria truly apply to occult bestiaries, occult historiography, etc.?

As much as the G.D. floated in a menstruum of ancient mythologies by long-vanished races and cultures bearing precisely zero literal formal or cultural connection to their own Order, they were simultaneously (as you have mentioned elsewhere) engaged upon a radically forward-looking, creative, syncretic, imaginative, sorcerous enterprise, that was entirely in and of its moment and milieu. No apology to rationalists, no apology to scientists, let alone academics or semanto-taxonomists, just glorious, unashamed hocus-pocus from start to finish!

Respect!

After re-visiting Alan Moore's peerless article Fossil Angels recently, I wish here to indicate the overbearingly Artistic character of the Golden Dawn's entire modus (and mundus) operandi. 

And, for Art, particularly of the sorcerous kind, "Truth" matters (and means) more than mere "fact".

What I'm getting at is, I think that despite the fact that the author of those parts of GD symbolatry may have been embarrassed by his mistake had he the advantage of modern scholarship's correcting lens, what difference, if any, would it have made to the meaning and results of their work?

We have on the other hand the ultimate cryptid in Set. The mystery his taxonomical ambiguity presents us moderns with would not have featured in his original cult, as the relevant animal and its traits was (presumably) a part of their observable landscape, not a mystery in itself as it is to us now.

Yours in non-mobile becoming,
N0T 2

[Deleted]

I am a great sweeper, NOT 2, and like to make a good racket while beating the dead moths and grave dust out of the carpets when I sweep out the attics.

The wretched sarcophagus fragment has served us very well as a way of talking about the content and construction of imaginal worlds, and the provenance of their building materials.

[stephen]

Perhaps I am not the only one, but I find it extremely presumptious of Simplicissimus to state that this thread is over and done with, having supplied us with sufficient ammunition for "imaginal worlds"; nor do I, or anyone else, recall having invited him in to be the self-appointed janitor of the Typhonian forums.

Having said, down to business.  Thanks for pointing out the G.'.D.'. bio of Florence Farr, NOT 2; although she identified herself with the Theban priestess NEM KHEFT KA, this is not to be associated with the 'astral' entity contacted via the sarcophagus fragment, which according to the available records of Sphere Group workings was a male Egyptian entity.  Some of these documentations are extant in the Gerald Yorke collection in the Warburg I believe, and it would be very interesting to have the information of the Sphere Group's communications with the 'Egyptian Master' (or possibly not !). Kenneth Grant's assertion that the sarcophagus fragment was that of a priestess of the XIIIth dynasty (bit vague here, having not checked 'Hecate's Fountain) remains as valid as any other.

My specific point of interest, as indicated in my previous hot-and-piece, cut and copy posting, was how, if at all, these communications prefigured the substance and content of Crowley's reception of The Book of the Law.

Appreciate that from certain points of view, this might be regarded as indulgence in narcissitic obsessions with such strange concepts as Thelema - having little relevance to some self-defined concept as Typhonian (irrelevant to Kenneth Grant's appreciation of that particular realisation), nevertheless, I invite your opinions.

[N0T 2]

Jun 6, 2014 14:52:06 GMT stephen said:

Thanks for pointing out the G.'.D.'. bio of Florence Farr, NOT 2; although she identified herself with the Theban priestess NEM KHEFT KA, this is not to be associated with the 'astral' entity contacted via the sarcophagus fragment, which according to the available records of Sphere Group workings was a male Egyptian entity.  Some of these documentations are extant in the Gerald Yorke collection in the Warburg I believe, and it would be very interesting to have the information of the Sphere Group's communications with the 'Egyptian Master' (or possibly not !). Kenneth Grant's assertion that the sarcophagus fragment was that of a priestess of the XIIIth dynasty (bit vague here, having not checked 'Hecate's Fountain) remains as valid as any other.

My specific point of interest, as indicated in my previous hot-and-piece, cut and copy posting, was how, if at all, these communications prefigured the substance and content of Crowley's reception of The Book of the Law.

Appreciate that from certain points of view, this might be regarded as indulgence in narcissitic obsessions with such strange concepts as Thelema - having little relevance to some self-defined concept as Typhonian (irrelevant to Kenneth Grant's appreciation of that particular realisation), nevertheless, I invite your opinions.

Thanks for this observation, Stephen, I wasn't clear on the detail regarding the identity of their Egyptian contactee in the past. What is your source? The lazily unvetted weblink I posted conflates the two contactees, saying the priestess Nem Keft Ka was called a Secret Chief by Mathers.

I wonder if this ancient egyptian priestess saw a spherical UFO containing Florence Farr? LOL

This is becoming a very interesting thread, now that the maniac with the vacuum cleaner has settled down a bit... some of those spiders were my friends!! And the ancient champagne doesn't go down as easily after it's been distilled into water and alcohol . .  .

Regarding your specific point of interest, I would not be surprised if word of the Sphere group's activity was an unconscious and unacknowledged inspiration to Crowley (i.e. how an arriviste can become chums with the invisible CEO, or Board, without going through the middle management mediocrities in your way), and he would have heard of it via Bennett who was involved. Whether their activity contained echoes of Al is another point, I doubt it, but it's worth looking into to see what it did contain that Al doesn't, perhaps. Or, as you say, perhaps not. It's also worth being sane at this point and pointing out that Crowley's work is far more likely to have been influenced by this than the other way around. I don't mean in content, but in intent.

This matter of discarnate Authority, Secret Chiefs, Discarnate Intelligence, etc., is the crux of most organised types of occultism and indeed religion and I have spent some time dealing with it, however I haven't really combed it out yet outside of the Crowley-associated groups (where I think I have to a certain point of satisfaction). The way in which it has been dealt with variously by Wescott, Mathers, Farr, Felkin, Crowley, Parsons, Grant, and the rest since is really worth studying in its own right, and I don't know of a good comprehensive monograph on the subject that includes the G.D.'s efforts in this direction (GD groups that did not like Crowley which continued after he invented the A.A.).

On the one hand we have Wescott forging the Sprengel letters according to Mathers (but not the cipher manuscripts), then sincere Sphere workings frowned upon by Golden Dawn conservatives of the 1890s, then later in New Zealand we have Dr. Felkin pursuing his own line of expansion of the G.D. into the higher Grades (to 9=2) via a Link to The Secret Chiefs in complete independence in a purpose-built Golden Dawn temple designed by the country's most prestigious architect at the time - more than any other related occult order can say.

In complete oblivion to all this we had the Crowleyites and Thelemites acting out the parts written for them by Crowley for his messianic narrative, with few exceptions such as Kenneth Grant, who used what he had to make his own contacts of this kind, or to have those kinds of experiences.  In each case, the person taking the creative initiative in seizing fire from heaven is called an Heretic, kicked out and simultaneously becomes the new Head of the New Order. And yet this is what their training is for. In isolation, it would be a surprise - but with the advantage of history we can see the pattern and learn from it.

Regardless of arguments about legitimacy or lineage, the process is of interest, the phenomenon is of interest, and it is clearly a very passionate enterprise viewed by its participants as the defining aspect of their lives - the most dramatic experience they have had, the most sincere and intense spiritual endeavour they undertook, and the object in each case was to make contact so as to produce teachings and practical material to pave new ways to enchantment and apotheosis using their existing, incomplete, framework they started with, different blooms bursting from a single bush. (Do flowers hate eachother? Probably.)

The beauty of the Typhonian Order and others similarly inclined is that this field of active research into developing creative means to contact and receive this kind of transmission is its central concern rather than a controversial or spastic eruption as it has been (and remains) in all the other cases.

Crowley saw Dee's work as presaging his own, an abortive Earthing of Thelema. Perhaps the rest are also worth a squiz.

[PW PV 113]

Thanks for the sagacious words. The thread represents a rich vein because of the potential for embodying the powerful qualities of the Ancient Egyptian world view and the peace to the soul that it brings.

Any explanation, any brief verbal outline is the tip of the iceberg - the imagination lies beneath it and I wouldn't prejudge the extent or the nature of the contents; technically, it's unlimited and any working would have a substantial intuitive component. I wouldn't place much hope in tracking down documents for a historical reenactment. The practical part of the formula - executed in words, gestures, movements will set up the vibratory environment; the Priestess will reach in make the contact; once established, direction will be provided again by the Priest. This limited explanation should not be taken to imply limits on the operation.

The Secret Chiefs issue is always highly contentious; it goes to the heart of lineage. I believe there lies behind and beneath this a unity between the Primal Gnosis - that is to say pre-Dynastic Egypt - and Judaistic Monotheism. Deconstruction follows of AC's intent to justify the Sumerian pantheon and Grant's reach through to the Great Old Ones. Through this method it can further be demonstrated that Theosophy and Blavatsky share the same root as the OTO and HOGD. The unity is one of the shamanistic and theurgic methodologies ; the only thing that suffers is that the Cosmic Christ gets divorced from Yahweh/Jehovah. How is all this possible and why is a fragment of a sarcophagus responsible ? Through the only essential connection there is ; from the centre of the galaxy to the centre of the sun to the centre of the earth to the heart of each individual who is a star.

[stephen]

Just a quick response, NOT 2, I am a bit preoccupied with Vodou at present as I'm giving a talk on it to the local Pagan Pathways group here in Sheffield, South Yorkshire tomorrow evening.

My only source of information is limited to Ellic Howe's 1972 book "The Magicians of the Golden Dawn".  There is another reference to the Egyptian Astral by Gardner (I think) in there, that is not mentioned in my post which I can add to the thread, a bit later, perhaps ?

Cheers - stephen.

[N0T 2]

Jun 6, 2014 23:51:21 GMT N0T 2 said:

This is becoming a very interesting thread, now that the maniac with the vacuum cleaner has settled down a bit...

It doesn't seem out of place to quote Rabelais at this point :

 

N A T V R A   A B H O R R E T   V A C V V M

Thank you.